Jim DeMint Quits Senate to Run Right Wing Propaganda Outfit

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is resigning from the Senate, in order to take over as president of the right wing propaganda outfit known as the Heritage Foundation.

Sen. DeMint’s departure means that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, a Republican, will name a successor, who will have to run in a special election in 2014. In that year, both Mr. DeMint’s replacement and Sen. Lindsey Graham will be running for reelection in South Carolina.

At the Heritage Foundation, DeMint will oversee attempts to confuse the public about climate change, propaganda campaigns to mislead Americans about the economy, and model legislation to erase the separation of church and state.

In other words, pretty much the same stuff he’s been doing in the Senate, except he’ll get paid more.

Well, Heritage has been writing legislation for him for years, might as well start working for them. Better pay and he doesn't have to worry about going out to shake the hands of the unwashed masses every 6 years.

In other words, pretty much the same stuff he’s been doing in the Senate, except he’ll get paid more.

A lot more considering he will still be getting his full Senate salary too on top of whatever Heritage pays. DeMint turns 62 on September 2nd next year and will then receive a full federal pension. He served more than five years in Congress so he gets a 100% pension at 62, or he can begin drawing his pension right now since he is over 55, but at a reduced rate.

How this could make sense:
1) he's got health concerns that might limit his travel or workload, and the Heritage job is easier (even if it pays 5x as much);
2) he's making the money grab while the offer is on the table;
3) there's some lingering controversy/scandal brewing that he wants to defuse before it gets publicized;
3a) leadership gave him this option as an out to avoid publicity;
4) it's all about the Benjamins.

I'm going with $$$$. Even if he says it isn't, it's probably about the money.

I do think it's probably about money. Usually is but man would I love it if it came out that DeMint had a scandal going on. To me, he's one of the people most responsible for the Congressional GOP being as nuts as it is. On the other hand, he's also through his kingmaking or more accurately kingfailing the reason why the Dems have been able to hold on to the Senate. After all, he and Palin blessed such notables like Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, todd Akin, etc.

“Over 65 percent of Americans agree that taxes need to be higher on those making over $250,000 a year,” Roberts noted as Black chucked off camera. “And I know you like to say these are small business owners, these are people that are going to give jobs to the American people.”

“But when we look at this as a whole and the mandate that was given as a collective voice with the president’s re-election and he ran on the fact that he was going to raise taxes, and now this polling supports that Americans want to see taxes raised,” Roberts continued with Black unable to stop herself from snickering again at the mention of the survey results. “How can you stand there within the halls of Congress and say that’s not something you are willing to do?”

“Well, I think that’s a really good question,” Black replied with a smile. “But here’s my question: If I say I want my neighbor to pay more than what I pay — I don’t care what level you’re at, you will always have that happen — but I think that what a lot of the American people are not aware of is how it’s going to directly impact them, and that is their jobs. Because these are the job creators.”

Congresswoman Black, how many jobs have you personally created as a millionaire with the current tax breaks given to you?

Yep, if he dropped out before now, the seat might actually have been up for grabs. Instead, now he assures that at least until 2014, it will remain in GOP hands.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. He drops out, a full-metal wingnut like Akin/Mourdock etc. gets in and does something stupid, Dem sneaks in. With Haley as governor, he can win the seat, drop out, and it's almost guaranteed a Repub will get appointed.

Including many in the Tea Party. Mike Lee, for one. Heck, I'm pretty sure Scalia said he thought it was a mistake. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if that actually was part of DeMint's motivation for not resigning before the election.

Only if he dropped out before running for reelection in 2010. The seat isn't up again until 2016. Frankly, I don't think there was much of a chance of a Democrat winning the seat in a general election.

From the 2010 Senate race: DeMint defeated Greene by a comfortable margin (61-27; Green party candidate got nearly 10%). Even if it was a 2-way race, the GOP had that seat sealed up pretty well.

Including many in the Tea Party. Mike Lee, for one. Heck, I'm pretty sure Scalia said he thought it was a mistake. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if that actually was part of DeMint's motivation for not resigning before the election.

Funny because Lee never gets elected if there is no 17th amendment. I'm no observer of Utah politics but I bet Bob Bennett was more popular with the Utah state senate than Mike Lee was.

Congresswoman Black, how many jobs have you personally created as a millionaire with the current tax breaks given to you?

That's exactly the question that is never asked about this. I mean, that's the whole point of high-end tax cuts. That money will be invested into businesses that will then create jobs, therefore trickle-down etc. (I think the commentariat is smart enough to not need the play-by-play).

But it's complete bullshit. Romney was the perfect example. What do the rich do with this money, especially in today's world? Off-shore investments, or shady hedge-fund operations that are nothing more than casinos (fraudulent in my opinion) that do nothing to help the economy. That, and then they use their absurd wealth to buy legislative power in order to increase that wealth even more.

That's exactly the question that is never asked about this. I mean, that's the whole point of high-end tax cuts. That money will be invested into businesses that will then create jobs, therefore trickle-down etc. (I think the commentariat is smart enough to not need the play-by-play).

But it's complete bullshit. Romney was the perfect example. What do the rich do with this money, especially in today's world? Off-shore investments, or shady hedge-fund operations that are nothing more than casinos (fraudulent in my opinion) that do nothing to help the economy. That, and then they use their absurd wealth to buy legislative power in order to increase that wealth even more.

Exactly and what you describe is why supply side economics theory is a myth.

Only if he dropped out before running for reelection in 2010. The seat isn't up again until 2016. Frankly, I don't think there was much of a chance of a Democrat winning the seat in a general election.

Maybe not...but there will be two primaries in 2014 now - one for Demint's seat and one for Lindsey Graham's (though he probably hopes the teabaggers focus on the open seat and tear each other apart there). But given two seats in the same election, it would provide an opportunity for Democrats to focus on one of them and stand a chance of gaining one.

Maybe not...but there will be two primaries in 2014 now - one for Demint's seat and one for Lindsey Graham's (though he probably hopes the teabaggers focus on the open seat and tear each other apart there). But given two seats in the same election, it would provide an opportunity for Democrats to focus on one of them and stand a chance of gaining one.

more opportunities for a teabag primary to hand a safe republican seat to a democrat

That's exactly the question that is never asked about this. I mean, that's the whole point of high-end tax cuts. That money will be invested into businesses that will then create jobs, therefore trickle-down etc. (I think the commentariat is smart enough to not need the play-by-play).

But it's complete bullshit. Romney was the perfect example. What do the rich do with this money, especially in today's world? Off-shore investments, or shady hedge-fund operations that are nothing more than casinos (fraudulent in my opinion) that do nothing to help the economy. That, and then they use their absurd wealth to buy legislative power in order to increase that wealth even more.

Who does more to help the economy? A family man who spends the majority of his paycheck on goods and services to care of his family or a CEO who sends his money to an offshore account to hide it from the taxman?

Who does more to help the economy? A family man who spends the majority of his paycheck on goods and services to care of his family or a CEO who sends his money to an offshore account to hide it from the taxman?

Even though the Democrats didn't gain the seat, I think you have to count Lisa Murkowski beating Joe Miller as a failure for DeMint too. Murkowski voted for that disability treaty. No way in hell does Joe "The Berlin Wall was okay" Miller does.

Fun thing - go through the list of the nation's wealthiest and see how many started on third base. Not all, but the majority.

was doing my geneology this weekend. jewish immigrants come over in the last quarter of the 19th cen - tailor shops, dry goods stores, supervisor in a shirt factory. the next two generations, 3 surgeons, a magazine editor, a lawyer, a graphic artist (RISD), and a software engineer

Fun thing - go through the list of the nation's wealthiest and see how many started on third base. Not all, but the majority.

"I earned my money the old fashioned way, I inherited it." In my observations the truly self made are less prissy about taxes. Take Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Both self-made yet don't act like every tax increase is tyranny.

Congresswoman Black, how many jobs have you personally created as a millionaire with the current tax breaks given to you?

How did I know that was going to be Diane Black, one of my state's (TN) representatives?

She's a twit and a rich twit at that, representing a mixed rural/suburban district that flipped GOP for only the second time since Reconstruction (and will likely stay GOP for the foreseeable future, with the reddening of the state).

Would love to see his voting record too. Of course, this quote will be used by Rubio's fanboys and girls to say "See, he's not as bigoted as Rick Santorum." Really what is the honest to god difference between Marco Rubio and past Republicans that the country has rejected? He's a young guy but he's not always going to be young and take it from someone young, you can be young and ignorant, and Marco and the also young Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal are ignorant as ti gets.

re: #48 HappyWarrior
his suggestion that as a policy maker he does not “pass judgment” is not backed up by his deeds. Rubio opposed allowing same-sex couples in Florida to adopt children. He opposed allowing gay and lesbian members of the Armed Services to serve openly. He opposes making it illegal to fire someone just for being LGBT.

Worse than his rigid opposition to legal recognition for same-sex couples, he recorded a robocall for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) last month. His message was part of an unsuccessful $500,000 campaign by the anti-LGBT group to encourage voters to oppose pro-equality candidates and ballot initiatives in the November elections. Despite Rubio’s efforts, voters rejected NOM’s positions in every single race and all four ballot questions.

was doing my geneology this weekend. jewish immigrants come over in the last quarter of the 19th cen - tailor shops, dry goods stores, supervisor in a shirt factory. the next two generations, 3 surgeons, a magazine editor, a lawyer, a graphic artist (RISD), and a software engineer

his suggestion that as a policy maker he does not “pass judgment” is not backed up by his deeds. Rubio opposed allowing same-sex couples in Florida to adopt children. He opposed allowing gay and lesbian members of the Armed Services to serve openly. He opposes making it illegal to fire someone just for being LGBT.

Worse than his rigid opposition to legal recognition for same-sex couples, he recorded a robocall for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) last month. His message was part of an unsuccessful $500,000 campaign by the anti-LGBT group to encourage voters to oppose pro-equality candidates and ballot initiatives in the November elections. Despite Rubio’s efforts, voters rejected NOM’s positions in every single race and all four ballot questions.

That's a lot of crazy for one guy. Lord only knows what he tells his shrink.

How dare you?! Jim DeMint only needs his pastor to work through his problems!!1 Psychiatrists are all part of a left-wing plot to feminize America's men and to convince American women not to stay at home and have children!!11 If you think Jim DeMint should see a psychiatrist, THEN YOU'RE NOT A REAL AMERICAN!!!11

I do love how DeMint clutches his pearls about "big government" when he's as if not bigger government than the people he decries. This is a man who per Charles link thinks that unwed women and gay people shouldn't be allowed to teach children. And we of course here are familiar with DeMint's famous quote that you can't be a fiscal conservative without being a social one. Earth to Jim Deminted Idiot but social conservatism costs money too and is more intrusive as well.

Does smell fishy. Was there any chance of a Dem stealing that seat if he didn't run? I doubt it.

Sounds like a money grab.

The whackadoodle Senate candidates he endorsed who primaried incumbents... lost to Democrats. He as much as any sitting senator is responsible for R's not taking the majority, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if McConnell is responding with spiteful committee assignments.

Ever wonder how many wealthy got it via inheritance?I wonder if any of this is accurate..
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

The whackadoodle Senate candidates he endorsed who primaried incumbents... lost to Democrats. He as much as any sitting senator is responsible for R's not taking the majority, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if McConnell is responding with spiteful committee assignments.

Yeah he was getting a lot of positive press for his kingmaking ability. Less so now since he's mostly chosen losers. Can't imagine McConnell and the leadership are too happy that Jim's guys and gals have been a big part of why the Republicans have come up short in their quest to retake the Senate and in fact this time even lost seats. The big one that probably stands out is probably the Indiana one. That's one that they should have never lost and they wouldn't have lost it if they hadn't primaried Lugar and replaced him with an imbecile who thinks rape induced pregnancies are a blessing.

Well, it appears that Twitter is going to insist on being able to totally change the CSS for their embedded tweets at any time, so for now I'm going to stop trying to apply my customized styles that match LGF's fonts and colors. I could figure out their latest styles, but who knows if they'll change it again?

Hopefully they'll document the CSS code and make it easier to modify at some point. For now you'll be seeing the fonts and colors the way Twitter wants you to.

Well, it appears that Twitter is going to insist on being able to totally change the CSS for their embedded tweets at any time, so for now I'm going to stop trying to apply my customized styles that match LGF's fonts and colors. I could figure out their latest styles, but who knows if they'll change it again?

Hopefully they'll document the CSS code and make it easier to modify at some point. For now you'll be seeing the fonts and colors the way Twitter wants you to.

To state the obvious, you don’t name Jim DeMint head of your think tank because you’re trying to improve the quality of your scholarship. You name DeMint head of your think tank because you’re trying to become the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
...
The politicization of Washington’s think tanks long predates DeMint. Tevi Troy, a former member of the George W. Bush administration, put in well in National Affairs:

Washington think tanks have undergone a transformation. Today, while most think tanks continue to serve as homes for some academic-style scholarship regarding public policy, many have also come to play more active (if informal) roles in politics. Some serve as governments-in-waiting for the party out of power, providing professional perches for former officials who hope to be back in office when their party next takes control of the White House or Congress. Some serve as training grounds for young activists. Some serve as unofficial public-relations and rapid-response teams for one of the political parties — providing instant critiques of the opposition’s ideas and public arguments in defense of favored policies.

“At a moment when we have too much noise in politics and too few constructive ideas,” warned Troy, “these institutions may simply become part of the intellectual echo chamber of our politics, rather than providing alternative sources of policy analysis and intellectual innovation.”

"PC" That's how he describes one of the most successful armed forces in the world? Of course, this is the same cowardly asshole who described a CMOH winner who won his medal in part to saving people as somehow feminizing and delegitimitizing the award. Of course, if Fischer was ever faced in any of the situation that our armed forces or the IDF deal with, he'd shit his pants faster than Ted Nugent because Fischer's just a little coward with a radio show and nothing else.

Ever wonder how many wealthy got it via inheritance?I wonder if any of this is accurate..
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Doesn't sound accurate. The Waltons alone would skew that. Maybe they're only counting the total they inherited flatly, and not the value it accrued to.

So, three days before I get laid off I get an email out of the blue from an old colleague (it's been 12 years since we worked together) who wants me to come over to his present company and possibly help launch a new division...I wrote back yesterday figuring it wouldn't hurt to 'start the conversation'.

He wants me to come in today, so I'm off to meet him for coffee to see if there's anything there I'm interested in doing.

But DeMint doesn’t have even one foot in the policy world. He’s a politician who made his mark practicing a particularly hard-edged form of electoral politics: raising money to undermine insufficiently conservative Republicans.

Although they were becoming increasingly important in prominent policy discussions, think tanks in the 1950s and '60s intentionally kept some distance between themselves and the most heated political debates of the era. They saw it as their role to inform but not quite to advocate — to help clarify policy alternatives, but generally not to choose among them.
...
The Center for American Progress is easily the most thoroughgoing example of what City College of New York professor Andrew Rich has called "marketing think tanks." For these institutions, the balance between original research and public relations is clearly tipped in the direction of the latter. As Rich puts it, these organizations often seem more interested in selling their product than in coming up with new ideas.
...
This can be seen in the rise of the phenomenon of think tanks that, like CAP, create 501(c)(4) affiliates (donations to which are not tax-exempt) to do more political work. Even though these organizations are careful to maintain a "Chinese wall" between the (c)(3) and (c)(4) components that enables them to retain their tax-exempt status, the existence of the more political twin makes the intent of the think tank clear. It is hard to imagine Brookings or AEI, for example, creating a (c)(4) arm, and even harder to imagine exactly what those political arms would advocate, or even what process would enable them to make those decisions.

The emergence of cable-television networks has put further pressure on think tanks to produce more immediate and political products.

It's a fascinating topic. These think tanks drive the political discussion more than most people know. In many ways I think they're possibly more powerful than the parties themselves.

Men don't seem so well-designed for combat either. They keep getting hurt and dying and stuff.

So what you're saying is we need androgynous robots to fight our wars. Seriously, how hard is this for Fischer to figure out? There are plenty of women out there who would make better combat soldiers than I would. Ones that know how to fire a weapon accurately, ones that know how to take cover, etc. They're not women soldiers. They're soldiers who happen to be women. Of course, if we were back in 1947 when President Truman desegregated the military, Fischer and his lik would be bitching about that front and center.

It irks me to see these organizations referred to as "think tanks," especially groups like Heritage that exist for no purpose but propaganda and deceptive pseudo-statistics. They're not "thinking" about anything except how to promote their reactionary ideology.

I'm not so sure if I'm happy to see him leave politics. The motive that I think most people are missing is I don't think he's motivated by money. I think he's going for power and Heritage will get him more influence than he had as a legislator.

But DeMint doesn’t have even one foot in the policy world. He’s a politician who made his mark practicing a particularly hard-edged form of electoral politics: raising money to undermine insufficiently conservative Republicans.

Good riddance, if anyone needed another reason.

Don't think he wont be still doing that while working for Heritage, he will be.

It irks me to see these organizations referred to as "think tanks," especially groups like Heritage that exist for no purpose but propaganda and deceptive pseudo-statistics. They're not "thinking" about anything except how to promote their reactionary ideology.

These think tanks were created specifically to confuse the issue; most of their tactics started back with the tobacco companies. What's more, there are genuine, honest think tanks out there that, while being partisan, engage with reality; one of the problems of the think tanks like Heritage is they lead to naive people dismissing anything that's called a 'think tank' simply because so much of what they hear coming out of the right-wing think tanks is pure lies and nonsense.

So, three days before I get laid off I get an email out of the blue from an old colleague (it's been 12 years since we worked together) who wants me to come over to his present company and possibly help launch a new division...I wrote back yesterday figuring it wouldn't hurt to 'start the conversation'.

He wants me to come in today, so I'm off to meet him for coffee to see if there's anything there I'm interested in doing.

Cheers, everyone. Play nice.

I'd hate you, except, well, I don't want anyone else going through the long-term mess I've been through. Good luck, may it be a joy.

Fun thing - go through the list of the nation's wealthiest and see how many started on third base. Not all, but the majority.

If you're talking about the Forbes 400... surprisingly enough, it's less than half. But they're the anti-tax crusaders; the self-made either agitate for higher taxes, or describe their political choices as being based on other issues.

Even the right-wingers -- for the hedge-fund billionaires, it's about Dodd-Frank (they liked Obama in 2008). For Sheldon Adelson, it's about unions and Israel and the DOJ's investigating him under the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act. For Foster Frieze and the Chick-fil-a guy it's about abortion and gays.

It irks me to see these organizations referred to as "think tanks," especially groups like Heritage that exist for no purpose but propaganda and deceptive pseudo-statistics. They're not "thinking" about anything except how to promote their reactionary ideology.

I agree. The article at #93 follows the evolution of the "think tanks" from their intellectual beginnings into what they've become today.

The Center for American Progress is easily the most thoroughgoing example of what City College of New York professor Andrew Rich has called "marketing think tanks." For these institutions, the balance between original research and public relations is clearly tipped in the direction of the latter. As Rich puts it, these organizations often seem more interested in selling their product than in coming up with new ideas. CAP in particular seems to have turned marketing and organizing into an art form. According to a 2008 article by Bloomberg's Edwin Chen, CAP devoted about 40% of its resources to communication and outreach that year, eight times as much as typical liberal policy organizations did. At the time, CAP had a budget of $27 million and claimed 180 staffers, employing about as many full-time bloggers (11) as PPI did scholars. CAP has even been involved in the Occupy Wall Street protests: According to the New York Times, CAP "encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities"; a spokesman for the center told the Times that "we've definitely been publicizing it and supporting" the movement.

While CAP is the most far-reaching example, the "do tank" model is by no means limited to the left. Republican losses in 2006 and 2008, coupled with CAP's success, have led conservatives to pursue their own more activist think tanks. An aide to former president George W. Bush and to Senator John McCain's presidential campaign, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, recently started the American Action Forum, the very name of which reflects its activist inclinations. According to Congressional Quarterly, Holtz-Eakin felt that existing operations such as AEI and Heritage were " ‘not helpful' during the McCain campaign because they weren't politically engaged or innovative in their media strategies." His new organization hopes to change that dynamic and, as the group's mission statement puts it, "use the modern tools of communications to deploy ideas; engage Americans in the debate over the boundaries of government policy, personal freedoms, and market incentives; and educate and challenge the media to explore these issues and shape the next generation of political leaders." (For the sake of full disclosure, it should be noted that I have lent my name to AAF as an affiliated expert, though I am not paid or supervised by the group in any way.)

These new institutions bear far less resemblance to universities than did the traditional think tanks, and have even drifted from the model of the more advocacy-oriented think tanks of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s.

So, three days before I get laid off I get an email out of the blue from an old colleague (it's been 12 years since we worked together) who wants me to come over to his present company and possibly help launch a new division...I wrote back yesterday figuring it wouldn't hurt to 'start the conversation'.

He wants me to come in today, so I'm off to meet him for coffee to see if there's anything there I'm interested in doing.

Ever wonder how many wealthy got it via inheritance?I wonder if any of this is accurate..
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Let's see. 1 says nothing about where they started. 2 is self-citation, and I ask everyone to recall how Anne Romney told of the financial straits they had to experience, even selling some of Mitt's stock to pay for college. 3, like one, says nothing of their starting point.

As the philosopher said, it's a lot easier to earn your second million. So the question I asked stands: how many of the current 1% started as children of the top -- 1%, 2%, or 5%?

It irks me to see these organizations referred to as "think tanks," especially groups like Heritage that exist for no purpose but propaganda and deceptive pseudo-statistics. They're not "thinking" about anything except how to promote their reactionary ideology.

There are think tanks who actually do want to educate, rather than propagandize. There's an enormous difference between, say, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and, say, the "Ethics and Public Policy Center", where the editor of the National Affairs article that Killgore is infatuated at works. The latter self-describes as:

Founded in 1976, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.'s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.

As with anything, just because something is called a 'think tank' it shouldn't gain or lose any credibility; it should be judged on its output.

There are think tanks who actually do want to educate, rather than propagandize. There's an enormous difference between, say, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy studies and, say, the "Ethics and Public Policy Center", where the editor of the National Affairs article that Killgore is infatuated at works. The latter self-describes as:

As with anything, just because something is called a 'think tank' it shouldn't gain or lose any credibility; it should be judged on its output.

Yes, I misspoke. Heritage may have started as a real 'think tank' but it's now a propaganda organization.

If I recall. Heritage was funded heavily by Joseph Coors of Coors Beer fame.

Indeed:

The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors.[5] Growing out of discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the "liberal consensus" and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[6] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers. With $200,000 from Coors, the Analysis and Research Association was created in 1970. New supporters and board members joined, including petroleum executive Edward Noble and Richard Mellon Scaife. Eventually, the organization split into a public interest law center and a separate public policy foundation, the latter of which was incorporated as The Heritage Foundation on February 16, 1973. Weyrich was its first president. Later, under president Frank J. Walton, the Heritage Foundation introduced using direct mail fundraising and Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[7]

When there are government funded programs dedicated to wiping out Christianity by separating children from their families and bringing them up in a manner designed to wipe out as much of their cultural heritage as possible, call me.

Yes, I misspoke. Heritage may have started as a real 'think tank' but it's now a propaganda organization.

According to the National Affairs article heritage founded many of the troublesome practices later adopted by other think tanks

It was frustration with this studied aloofness that eventually ushered in the age of more activist think tanks, beginning especially on the right. In his book The Power of Ideas, Heritage Foundation fellow Lee Edwards describes a pivotal moment in this evolution when, in 1971, AEI produced a study of the benefits and drawbacks of the supersonic transport aircraft that Congress was considering funding for the Pentagon. The study was delivered to congressional offices a few days after the Senate had defeated funding for the project in a close 51-46 vote. After receiving the apparently tardy report, Paul Weyrich — then an aide to Colorado Republican senator Gordon Allott — called AEI president William Baroody to ask why the helpful analysis could not have been available before the vote. Baroody's response, according to Edwards, was that AEI "didn't want to try to affect the outcome of the vote."

Baroody's answer shocked Weyrich and his fellow congressional staffer Ed Feulner, who wondered what the purpose of such research was if not to affect the outcome of exactly that sort of vote. Weyrich and Feulner hatched the notion of a new think tank that would see as its mission the development of serious policy research to advance a broadly conservative agenda. Encouraged by Nixon White House staffer Lyn Nofziger, they began the work that would, in 1973, result in the creation of the Heritage Foundation.

RESEARCH IN ACTION

Heritage was a different breed of think tank, and augured the new direction in which such institutions were headed. A far cry from its avowedly hands-off predecessors, Heritage tried explicitly to "formulate and promote conservative public policies," as the organization's mission statement put it. It sought not only to serve as a source of basic research and analysis but also to help drive the agenda on behalf of conservatives around the country. To that end, Heritage pursued direct-mail fundraising, a tactic more typical of political campaigns and mostly unheard of among think tanks at the time. It rightly considered itself as much an organ of the conservative movement as of the Washington intellectual world.

New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I’ve seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance’s share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers.

When there are government funded programs dedicated to wiping out Christianity by separating children from their families and bringing them up in a manner designed to wipe out as much of their cultural heritage as possible, call me.

There's method to his madness. Take middle class tax cuts off the table and the whole thing starts to lean towards the GOP. Not enough that they could get the American people to sign onto granny-starving and kicking poor folks, but it allows them a bit of breathing room to hammer Obama more for "entitlement reform."

It's more fuzzy than that.
Either way inherited wealth as a % is declining if the numbers shown were right.

If I inherit money, and invest it with some luck and double the money in a few years, half my wealth is inherited.

If I got the same value as inherited shares of a corporation and the shares go up.... It's all inherited. Unless i helped the stock go up via management decisions as a CEO or CFO.

Have you (or anyone reading) got any links showing studies how much of our 1%ers wealth is inherited? I see the claim of "most" asserted but no hard data.

Social mobility is the actual study stuff. The problem is that a full study needs two full generations, so anyone born after 1970 or so is too young.

That said, see this NYT article. It references five studies that show that social mobility in the US is lower than it is in Europe. Of particular relevance is Miles Corak's study which showed that 26 percent of males raised in the top 10% stayed in the top 10% when considering generations born prior to 1970.

Some of his reports - and I don't have them handy so cannot cite them - indicate that over 80% of the current top 1% were raised in the top quintile and more than 50% came from the top 10%. Not definitively, just indicative at this point.

If I inherit money, and invest it with some luck and double the money in a few years, half my wealth is inherited.

The money you were given made more money. No matter how you parse it the opportunity itself is the result of inheritance. Any capitalization you perform fundamentally owes the inheritance for its existence.

Appearing on CNN just hours after announcing his pending resignation from the Senate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) summed up his reason for voting against the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of People with Disability (CRPD). The Tea Party lawmaker complained that members of the international body voted to upgrade Palestine’s status within its halls and explained that he couldn’t trust the U.N. or the treaty:

If I inherit money, and invest it with some luck and double the money in a few years, half my wealth is inherited.

Yeah, which is why this is a useless measurement. Other people don't get the chance to make wealth like that. Inheriting large amounts of money allows people to engage in speculation, unlike ordinary schlubs.

The Waltons are rich because they inherited money. They may have done successfully after that, but we have no idea if they could have succeeded on their own.

That's why I think people who are mega-rich should not leave a ton to their kids. They have no shot at a normal life or really feeling confident in their own abilities. Of course, I think people who are mega-rich should found a bunch of universities and shit with the money; I don't understand people who just have a ton of money in stock and stuff and don't want to actually do something with it.

What Limbaugh and DeMint were joking about was the so-called conservative purge, a move by Boehner to strip committee assignments from four members in the 113th Congress after they bucked Republican leadership in the 112th.

Boehner’s defended the demotions as having “nothing to do with ideology,” claiming he made the changes to punish disloyalty. But that hasn’t stopped some tea party conservatives from spooling up the full grassroots right wing machinery against him, including claims of conspiracy and attempts to depose him.

Over at Breitbart, there are reports of a “a secret criteria list” used by Boehner and the House leadership to run the purge. Conservative groups are livid, and they’re trying to use the tea party playbook to punish Boehner.

American Majority Action, a conservative group that boasts around 30,000 members on its email list, is calling on 16 House Republicans to either vote against or abstain from the vote making Boehner speaker in the next Congress.

“The House rules demand that a Speaker receive a majority — 218 votes — to be elected speaker. If no nominee for speaker receives 218, the House remains speakerless — as it did during parts of the Civil War,” Ned Ryun, American Majority Action president and son of former Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS), wrote on the group’s website. “If 16 House Republicans were to abstain from voting for Speaker, Boehner would only receive 217 votes.”

It's more fuzzy than that.
Either way inherited wealth as a % is declining if the numbers shown were right.

If I inherit money, and invest it with some luck and double the money in a few years, half my wealth is inherited.

If I got the same value as inherited shares of a corporation and the shares go up.... It's all inherited. Unless i helped the stock go up via management decisions as a CEO or CFO.

Have you (or anyone reading) got any links showing studies how much of our 1%ers wealth is inherited? I see the claim of "most" asserted but no hard data.

I think a more interesting question is "how much of a leg up did each member of the 1% have"? For instance, Donald Trump seems to have made a big go of making a small fortune out of a large one. Mitt Romney had $400,000 (2012 dollars) of AMC stock to get him through his college years. Bill Gates' father, William H. Gates II, is a very wealthy retired Lawyer.

If I'd been able to start with an extra half-million in help from my father, I'd own a house right now and have more money than I do now (as it is, I'm 30 and just about to have put together enough for a down payment). But, even without that, I still had a ton of help getting through college. I only ended up with $20k of debt and I didn't have to work my way through college. They were some austere years, but I didn't have to work, which is a huge help (and thanks to my father). That's allowed me to be up somewhere in the 80th percentile of household income (having a professional wife helps as well).

If I had had to work through college, I don't know where I'd be right now. Not nearly as well off. I have a deep respect for people who work through college. I do not know how they manage.

So, my rambling point is, it seems better questions might, how much of a lever were the members of the 1% bequeathed by birth to get there? How many came from an already successful and wealthy family? What percentile were their parents might be a more revealing.

(Looks like Kirk and Obdi beat me to parts of this post, but adding my voice anyway.)

That would be utterly ironic, wouldn't it? John of Orange, in trying to look "tough" against Obama by refusing to raise tax rates, might instead set his own ass up to lose the speakership because he actually suggested that the rich pay more?

That may or may not be the way to look at it from a comparison of inherited vs made money. Why would a guy that starts a business with his inheritance not count that companies profits as money he made with his efforts rather than ascribing every cent to inheritance?

Why deny a capable person the credit for the financial gain? We sure do blame a fool for wasting it or losing it. Inheritance of course is far more common than the 1%ers. Lots of us inherit humble dwellings or small estates. If I get a loan on that little inherited house and start a great franchise that makes millions is 100% of my wealth inherited? I would say not.

Inhofe posted his video at Youtube, the one that was played at the Monckton presser at the UNFCCC, and since the presser video itself may never get posted, here is your chance to the Inhofe section - lucky you!

That may or may not be the way to look at it from a comparison of inherited vs made money. Why would a guy that starts a business with his inheritance not count that companies profits as money he made with his efforts rather than ascribing every cent to inheritance?

Why deny a capable person the credit for the financial gain? We sure do blame a fool for wasting it or losing it. Inheritance of course is far more common than the 1%ers. Lots of us inherit humble dwellings or small estates. If I get a loan on that little inherited house and start a great franchise that makes millions is 100% of my wealth inherited? I would say not.

This goes back to why the "borrow $20k from your folks" line was so dumb. Maybe 100% isn't inherited, but that guy started much higher up the ladder, and shouldn't be ranting about how he's a self-made man. Because he isn't. Daddy made the money for the initial investment, and that made the later success much easier to achieve.

This is not to say he didn't work to make that business; just that he had an extra advantage and opportunity that I didn't. And that's what we're really trying to measure. How much had Daddy's money to work with and how many are really there because of only their own efforts (because a lot of former make noises that they are the latter, and that's the bit that galls).

I don't know what Commie calendar you're using. Mine says 2012. Does seem kind of random for the Mayans to pick that number for the end of the world. You think they'd have gone with 2000 or 2001 or something.

I grew up with two PhDs for parents, surrounded by books, and it's impossible not to see what a privilege that was for me. It's really important to remember how much you were given to help you get where you got.

FWIW, I don't think it's all about the $$ for DeMint, though it's undoubtedly a welcome plus. He's a true believer and I think someone has convinced him that he can effect more change by working for Heritage.

As has been said by several people here, the religious right isn't going to give up. They've had a taste of power and they came within inches of getting their hands on the brass ring. They're regrouping.

Jeff Sharlet: The Family is the oldest and arguably most influential religious conservative organization in Washington, a “brotherhood” comprised mostly of politicians such as Senator Jim Inhofe, Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Jim DeMint, and, now infamously, Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford, and former congressman Chip Pickering, all of whom turned to The Family to help cover up sex scandals this past summer. The reason you may not have heard about the group is that it doesn’t want you to hear about it—“the more invisible you can make your organization,” preaches leader Doug Coe, “the more influence it will have.” They’re not the only group in Washington that keeps a low profile, but it’s the nature of their influence that’s really noteworthy: some congressmen call it simply personal and thus private, but nearly 600 boxes of documents stored at the Billy Graham Center Archive reveals decades of intense political work around foreign and economic affairs.

Be on the lookout for new, slicker, more sophisticated framing & talking points, and keep an eye on DeMint's pals in Congress as well as the junior/freshman members he has supported & helped get elected, like Rubio and Cruz (the latter being, as you know, a full metal wingnut endorsed by Dave Barton and loved by the TP).

That may or may not be the way to look at it from a comparison of inherited vs made money. Why would a guy that starts a business with his inheritance not count that companies profits as money he made with his efforts rather than ascribing every cent to inheritance?

I'm saying that the opportunity itself wouldn't exist without the inheritance. Sure the guy's efforts went into building the business, but in most cases so did his employee's efforts and a lot of other factors like infrastructure. Financial success doesn't spring forth solely from individual effort, it relies on starting conditions and environment. It's intrinsically socio-logical. What I see in this country is a ton of undeserved ego worship, rich people who were given a crucial leg up deluding themselves into believing that "they built that."

So, three days before I get laid off I get an email out of the blue from an old colleague (it's been 12 years since we worked together) who wants me to come over to his present company and possibly help launch a new division...I wrote back yesterday figuring it wouldn't hurt to 'start the conversation'.

He wants me to come in today, so I'm off to meet him for coffee to see if there's anything there I'm interested in doing.

Seems a story of opposite perceptions. The critics want to ascribe nothing to the skills or efforts of business owners or CEO's, and too often they want to take all the credit. Neither position has much merit.

I'm saying that the opportunity itself wouldn't exist without the inheritance. Sure the guy's efforts went into building the business, but in most cases so did his employee's efforts and a lot of other factors like infrastructure. Financial success doesn't spring forth solely from individual effort, it relies on starting conditions and environment. It's intrinsically socio-logical. What I see in this country is a ton of undeserved ego worship, rich people who were given a crucial leg up deluding themselves into believing that "they built that."

and i resent it when self appointed 'job creators' demand that we thank them for the existence of jobs

apparently without their golden posteriors all of us employees would all be wandering around in an ignorant daze, unable to figure out the process of offering our services for compensation

I'm saying that the opportunity itself wouldn't exist without the inheritance. Sure the guy's efforts went into building the business, but in most cases so did his employee's efforts and a lot of other factors like infrastructure. Financial success doesn't spring forth solely from individual effort, it relies on starting conditions and environment. It's intrinsically socio-logical. What I see in this country is a ton of undeserved ego worship, rich people who were given a crucial leg up deluding themselves into believing that "they built that."

there is no 'i' in team, but there is a giant, overwhelming 'I' in WINGNUT

Bible must be wrong too, then. No way the earth can be 6000 years old if we're only in 2012.

The bible never says any such thing, it never refers to the age of the earth at all, when someone says "Well the bible says..." just tell them "No it doesn't."

Bishop Ussher sat down in 1654 and guessed at and then added up how much time he thought was between each listed biblical generation from all the "and so-in-so beget so-in-so's" in Genesis and decided that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.

Remember that according to the bible these people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years back then, so someone might have had a child when they were 17 or it could have been when they were 700, the bible does not say.

Bishop Usshers number is nothing but a guess, and rather a wild assed one at that. It did not come from long research to arrive at an "informed opinion" as some claim nor did he ever claim that it came from any spiritual revelation.

It simply become tradition for the church to agree that the number was "somewhere in that area" and leave it at that. Now modern day young earthers are trying to turn it into some kind of holy dogma, why? Because their beliefs have no support in the bible at all.

Seems a story of opposite perceptions. The critics want to ascribe nothing to the skills or efforts of business owners or CEO's, and too often they want to take all the credit. Neither position has much merit.

The bible never says any such thing, it never refers to the age of the earth at all, when someone says "Well the bible says..." just tell them "No it doesn't."

Bishop Ussher sat down in 1654 and guessed at and then added up how much time he thought was between each listed biblical generation from all the "and so-in-so beget so-in-so's" in Genesis and decided that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.

Remember that according to the bible these people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years back then, so someone might have had a child when they were 17 or it could have been when they were 700, the bible does not say.

Bishop Usshers number is nothing but a guess, and rather a wild assed one at that. It did not come from long research to arrive at an "informed opinion" as some claim nor did he ever claim that it came from any spiritual revelation.

It simply become tradition for the church to agree that the number was "somewhere in that area" and leave it at that. Now modern day young earthers are trying to turn it into some kind of holy dogma, why? Because their beliefs have no support in the bible at all.

I've always thought the "BC/AD" year naming conventions were a bit of an odd choice.

It's an absolute joke. He puts up the bill, thinking that no Democrats would dare vote for it. Instead, Reid drums up enough support to pass it on a simple majority basis, so McConnell skitters back and declares that he never intended it to pass by a simple majority vote.

Brian Breutler over at TPM thinks that there might be some mad genius behind it, that McConnell now knows he could put forward the same bill come January, in response to the debt ceiling bit, and be assured that Democrats alone will pass it. Thus putting all the pressure to make a deal on Boehner.

Seems a story of opposite perceptions. The critics want to ascribe nothing to the skills or efforts of business owners or CEO's, and too often they want to take all the credit. Neither position has much merit.

And how did I argue for something different? People who inherit have a huge head start. Some larger than others, some do better than others (for instance, Donald Trump seems particularly adept at not losing all of his money). The don't owe nobody nothin' attitude is part of the problem here, and what has all of us worked up.

The bible never says any such thing, it never refers to the age of the earth at all, when someone says "Well the bible says..." just tell them "No it doesn't."

Bishop Ussher sat down in 1654 and guessed at and then added up how much time he thought was between each listed biblical generation from all the "and so-in-so beget so-in-so's" in Genesis and decided that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.

Remember that according to the bible these people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years back then, so someone might have had a child when they were 17 or it could have been when they were 700, the bible does not say.

Bishop Usshers number is nothing but a guess, and rather a wild assed one at that. It did not come from long research to arrive at an "informed opinion" as some claim nor did he ever claim that it came from any spiritual revelation.

It simply become tradition for the church to agree that the number was "somewhere in that area" and leave it at that. Now modern day young earthers are trying to turn it into some kind of holy dogma, why? Because their beliefs have no support in the bible at all.

A cadet quitting West Point less than six months before graduation says he could no longer be part of a culture that promotes prayers and religious activities and disrespects nonreligious cadets.

Blake Page announced his decision to quit the U.S. Military Academy this week in a much-discussed online post that echoed the sentiments of soldiers and airmen at other military installations. The 24-year-old told The Associated Press that a determination this semester that he could not become an officer because of clinical depression played a role in his public protest against what he calls the unconstitutional prevalence of religion in the military.

"I've been trying since I found that out: What can I do? What can I possibly do to initiate the change that I want to see and so many other people want to see?" Page said. "I realized that this is one way I can make that change happen."

Page criticized a culture where cadets stand silently for prayers, where nonreligious cadets were jokingly called "heathens" by instructors at basic training and where one officer told him he'd never be a leader until he filled the hole in his heart. In announcing his resignation this week on The Huffington Post, he denounced "criminals" in the military who violate the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution.

"I don't want to be a part of West Point knowing that the leadership here is OK with just shrugging off and shirking off respect and good order and discipline and obeying the law and defending the Constitution and doing their job," he told the AP.

West Point officials on Wednesday disputed those assertions. Spokeswoman Theresa Brinkerhoff said prayer is voluntary at events where invocations and benedictions are conducted and noted the academy has a Secular Student Alliance club, where Page served as president.

Maj. Nicholas Utzig, the faculty adviser to the secular club, said he doesn't doubt some of the moments Page described, but he doesn't believe there is systematic discrimination against nonreligious cadets.

"I think it represents his own personal experience and perhaps it might not be as universal as he suggests," said Utzig, who teaches English literature.

Saw that. The military has become hyper religious over the years. It's fine to have chaplains and place of worship available but the proselytizing need to stop. Even by the chaplains. The cause of this is numerous including the hyper-religiosity which is a product of the tele-evangelization of America from the early 1980s. Another cause is the boastful nature of Americans. Sort of like conspicuous consumption. Many Americans have transfered that same behavior into conspicuous religiosity. Most I'm sure will tell you that spiritual fitness programs are a root cause.

A fog of misinformation has settled on the fiscal cliff, as both House Speaker John Boehner and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have traded conflicting, misleading and false statements in recent days on the president’s deficit-reduction plan:

0.9% of Americans consider themselves Buddhists. 1.6% consider themselves atheists and 15% consider themselves to be "none." The military doesn't accommodate for the latter. Many are forced into religious ceremonies by their commanders.

0.9% of Americans consider themselves Buddhists. 1.6% consider themselves atheists and 15% consider themselves to be "none." The military doesn't accommodate for the latter. Many are forced into religious ceremonies by their commanders.

So the men tasked with defending the constitution aren't required to abide by it?

So the men tasked with defending the constitution aren't required to abide by it?

It's been a long-standing problem in the military. It's a real shame, and it's a problem for unit cohesion; when any minority members are forced to go along with the religious majority, they're going to feel a disconnect.

0.9% of Americans consider themselves Buddhists. 1.6% consider themselves atheists and 15% consider themselves to be "none." The military doesn't accommodate for the latter. Many are forced into religious ceremonies by their commanders.

on the other hand, the military, which is nothing if not consistent, has made accommodations for wiccans

I used to draw subdivision plats way back. Part of the certificate would include the date as in "20__ A.D." They had "A.D." as a standard. I used to always drop that.

I went to a meeting on Tuesday that started with the Pledge of Allegiance. It had been a few years since I'd recited it, and it kind of came back to me as I was saying it. I went, "...One nation, under gahhh..."

Later that meeting I committed the heresy of speaking against bike lanes as a Vehicular Cyclist.

I went to a meeting on Tuesday that started with the Pledge of Allegiance. It had been a few years since I'd recited it, and it kind of came back to me as I was saying it. I went, "...One nation, under gahhh..."

Later that meeting I committed the heresy of speaking against bike lanes as a Vehicular Cyclist.

I used to be a rather well closeted atheist. Not that I'd pretend to pray or anything like that. I would just never tell a soul that I was an atheist. Now, if the conversation is going there I'll bring it up. Kind of creepy sometimes because a lot of people in this world won't hesitate to insult atheists or atheism. I had some guy do that to me one. We were pretty much friends. Forgot what he said exactly but I interjected with "I'm an atheist." Of course I got the common answer of "oh, don't tell me that." It's weird. People don't realize how poorly Americans treat atheists. They keep whining about this alleged war on Christmas which is many times motivated by atheist groups and the ACLU. But the war on atheism in this country is real as this West Point case illustrates. It's a systematic discrimination against atheists on many levels of society.

I went to a meeting on Tuesday that started with the Pledge of Allegiance. It had been a few years since I'd recited it, and it kind of came back to me as I was saying it. I went, "...One nation, under gahhh..."

One of my regular taxi drivers is an Egyptian guy named Gad. The "a" is a long vowel, making it sound really close to the way we pronounce "god", so next time maybe you can just pretend like you're saying , "One nation, under Gad..." LOL

What irks me is that people often assume that because I'm an atheist I spend any time whatsoever opposing or being hostile to religion. I don't give a shit about other people's religion. I give a shit about people asserting that gay people suck because God said so-- but I also care about people who say that gay people suck because men should be manly. It's the idea, not the religiosity of it that's bad.

But if I mention I'm an atheist people often act as though I'm going to try to convince them to be an atheist too.

What irks me is that people often assume that because I'm an atheist I spend any time whatsoever opposing or being hostile to religion. I don't give a shit about other people's religion. I give a shit about people asserting that gay people suck because God said so-- but I also care about people who say that gay people suck because men should be manly. It's the idea, not the religiosity of it that's bad.

But if I mention I'm an atheist people often act as though I'm going to try to convince them to be an atheist too.

That's why secularism is important. It's not about what one believes. Atheism can be said to be a private outlook just as much as being Christian. What you want is common bonds which works for the betterment of humanity. So you will find progressive Muslims for example who support gay rights. It won't surprise many to also learn that there are atheists that are opposed to gay rights. What we seek is common ground in liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness.

This is one of the reasons I find the situation in Egypt so fascinating is because there seems to be large population of secular progressives in and around Cairo and Alexandria that understand this. Secularism isn't about being religious or irreligious but instead about creating and cultivating a society that builds its foundations outside of their personal beliefs that others might not share. It's about common ground.

Yeah. He should have just said "I know and I still admire her work." That's what he was thinking all along since this was common knowledge. Instead he weaseled out and essentially threw her under the bus because she was an atheist. Not because she had some very flawed ideas about society.

(RNS) There are more Muslims from America than any other country on this year's "The Muslim 500: The World's 500 Most Influential Muslims," compiled by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre, a respected think tank in Jordan, including two in the top 50.

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, a California-born convert who founded Zaytuna College, an Islamic college in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading Islamic authority in America, ranked No. 42, two places ahead of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic studies professor at George Washington University known for his work in Islamic philosophy.

America's roughly 2.6 million Muslims are a tiny fraction of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, but they took 41 spots on the 500 list. Countries with the next highest number of names were Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom, with 25 Muslims each, followed by Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, with 24.

"Compared to the global Muslim population, the representation of U.S. Muslims in this list is disproportionate, but yet representative in the way they shape global discourse," said Duke University Islamic studies professor Ebrahim Moosa. [...]

Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.K. tied for 2nd place... looks like we have our work cut out for us with at least 3 out of 4 of those.

Yet look at the person of whom I wrote earlier today, Cathy Adams, who most definitely does not believe in secularism.

If she has her way, you won't have a secular society.

Thus it most definitely matters what she believes.

This is the same problem restated in other venues, where the absolutist position is incompatible with the relativist's.

It's a sticky wicket, in which we find ourselves. How do those who want to "live and let live" co-exist with those who most adamantly believe "you are with us or you are against us"??

It's a work in progress and I think most reasonable people are starting to see the light around the world. The US Constitution is a very good model and sometimes wish that Egypt would effectively copy it. Otherwise I have no personal expectations.

If President Obama wants to avoid an economic calamity next year, he could always show up at a news conference bearing two shiny platinum coins, each worth . . . $1 trillion.

Okay, that sounds utterly insane. But some economists and legal scholars have suggested that the “platinum coin option” is one way to defuse a crisis if Congress cannot or will not lift the debt ceiling soon. At least in theory.

[...]

Under current law, the Treasury is technically allowed to mint as many coins made of platinum as it wants and can assign them whatever value it pleases.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would make a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve. The Fed moves this money into Treasury’s accounts. And just like that, Treasury suddenly has an extra $2 trillion to pay off its obligations for the next two years — without needing to issue new debt. The ceiling is no longer an issue.

“I like it,” said Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “There’s nothing that’s obviously economically problematic about it.”

Google is getting quite creative with their main product pages these days.

Didn't like their last change. The auto search feature drives me nuts and it often just stall giving me a blank page. The suggestions also gets stuck sometimes and you have to hover over it and hit escape for the pull-down to close...

Yep. And when I was going through my Buddhist phase in the early '80's, a Baptist chaplain made sure the chain of command did not give me any shit about it. The incense made my CO twitchy but I never came up hot on the pee tests so I was ok for that year. I was too busy drinking to smoke but that's another story...

“Official U. S. policy now is to assist al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadists to overthrow what have been termed ‘unfaithful Arab/Muslim rulers’ who failed to enforce Islamic law (shariah) … and to replace them with jihadist Muslim Brotherhood leadership that has pledged its commitment to re-establishment of the Caliphate and strict implementation of Shariah,” she said.

Okay, the doctor told me no more bread, pasta, or potatoes—*sniffle*—so I ordered a 4 lb. bag of organic quinoa (the regular yellow kind) and have no idea how to cook it to make it tasty. Any suggestions?

Oh, and as an advance "thank you" here's a food blog called The Spice Spoon by a Persian-Pakistani woman. Many of the recipes look scrumptious and the blog is beautifully done, a real pleasure to browse through.

I am late to the thread so I am not sure if this was brought up already, but the Heritage Foundation enjoys tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) corporation. That means that people who donate money to their political agenda can claim it as a deduction on their tax returns. That means the US taxpayer is subsidizing Heritage Foundation.

Are donations to The Heritage Foundation tax deductible? Yes. The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and contributions are tax-deductible for income, gift, and estate taxes. Our federal tax identification number is 23-7327730.

It is the height of right wing hypocrisy. A think tank that allegedly espouses free market solutions and capitalism needs a government handout in order to operate.
When will our politicians put an end to the blatant abuse of the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The first rule of these organizations is that they can not be primarily lobbying groups. I know when. When the voters demand it.

ALEC is also a tax-exempt charitable organization. And even though the "donation" buys businessmen direct access to Congressmen and dinners and conferences, the business people can claim it as a donation.

Down here in real person world, if you buy tickets to a golf outing from a charitable organization, you can't claim the whole amount as a tax deduction. The portion of the price that went to the round of golf and the dinner are excluded because you received something in return, it wasn't a pure donation.

But when a corporation pays ALEC the $25,000 for membership, they can claim it as a donation. The direct access to lawmakers and the conferences and dinners aren't assessed any value.

Okay, the doctor told me no more bread, pasta, or potatoes—*sniffle*—so I ordered a 4 lb. bag of organic quinoa (the regular yellow kind) and have no idea how to cook it to make it tasty. Any suggestions?

Oh, and as an advance "thank you" here's a food blog called The Spice Spoon by a Persian-Pakistani woman. Many of the recipes look scrumptious, and the blog is beautifully done, a real pleasure to brows through.

My first tip for quinoa is to toast it. I'm suspicious of any recipe that doesn't tell you to toast your quinoa before cooking. Just a dry pan on med heat. You'll hear the seeds start to pop and the smell is heavenly on par with baking breading. just keep tossing until the seeds start to darken. It only takes 10 minutes but makes the difference between flavorless mush and awesome deliciousness.
It also makes an excellent thickener for soups, stews and curries instead of using flour or corn starch. My thanksgiving leftovers were transformed into turkey chilli thickened with quinoa. It came out fantastic.

Okay, the doctor told me no more bread, pasta, or potatoes—*sniffle*—so I ordered a 4 lb. bag of organic quinoa (the regular yellow kind) and have no idea how to cook it to make it tasty. Any suggestions?

Oh, and as an advance "thank you" here's a food blog called The Spice Spoon by a Persian-Pakistani woman. Many of the recipes look scrumptious, and the blog is beautifully done, a real pleasure to brows through.

3. Dry and toast quinoa in saucepan. Heat a drizzle of olive oil in the saucepan over medium-high heat, and add the drained quinoa. Cook, stirring, for about 1 minute, letting the water evaporate.
Nice!
/I love that David Lynch clip.

My first tip for quinoa is to toast it. I'm suspicious of any recipe that doesn't tell you to toast your quinoa before cooking. Just a dry pan on med heat. You'll hear the seeds start to pop and the smell is heavenly on par with baking breading. just keep tossing until the seeds start to darken. It only takes 10 minutes but makes the difference between flavorless mush and awesome deliciousness.
It also makes an excellent thickener for soups, stews and curries instead of using flour or corn starch. My thanksgiving leftovers were transformed into turkey chilli thickened with quinoa. It came out fantastic.

Okay, the doctor told me no more bread, pasta, or potatoes—*sniffle*—so I ordered a 4 lb. bag of organic quinoa (the regular yellow kind) and have no idea how to cook it to make it tasty. Any suggestions?

Oh, and as an advance "thank you" here's a food blog called The Spice Spoon by a Persian-Pakistani woman. Many of the recipes look scrumptious and the blog is beautifully done, a real pleasure to browse through.

Bummer. I'm sure your doc has plenty of solid advice but my uniformed opinion is to give up prepackaged microwavable meals. All those food products are loaded with extra sugars. Cook your own stuff in large batches and freeze smaller portions in tuperware. Diabetes is an epidemic and I'm pretty convinced it's the food companies that are doing it to us. Even the "healthy" labeled meals should be avoided. Buy ingredients not meals. It's cheaper too.

Bummer. I'm sure your doc has plenty of solid advice but my uniformed opinion is to give up prepackaged microwavable meals. All those food products are loaded with extra sugars. Cook your own stuff in large batches and freeze smaller portions in tuperware. Diabetes is an epidemic and I'm pretty convinced it's the food companies that are doing it to us. Even the "healthy" labeled meals should be avoided. Buy ingredients not meals. It's cheaper too.

Thanks. I pretty much cook like that already (i.e. my own stuff in batches, then freeze it in portions) and I didn't think I ate much processed food, but I still probably ate more than I should.

I agree (for the 3rd time, e gad) that a lot of it is due to the processed foods we eat. My doc agrees as well—too much added salt, sugar, starch, and God knows what other chemical stuff. I'm not big on sweets, but I didn't realize how much of the starch/carbs I was eating got converted into glucose. O_o

Luckily, she didn't try to take away my coffee & milk (I drink 1% anyway), and she said if I MUST occasionally eat bread or potatoes it can be rye and sweet potatoes. Still, *sniffle*....

I've had to stop buying certain foods because the temptation to indulge is too strong. I can’t eat what isn’t there and I don’t have a car, so it’s a pretty effective deterrent.

Thanks. I already pretty much cook like that already (i.e. my own stuff in batches, then freeze it in portion) and I didn't think I ate much processed food, but I still probably ate more than I should.

I agree (for the 3rd time, e gad) that a lot of it is due to the processed foods we eat. My doc agrees as well—too much added salt, sugar, starch, and God knows what other chemical stuff. I'm not big on sweets, but I didn't realize how much of the starch/carbs I was eating got converted into glucose. O_o

Luckily, she didn't try to take away my coffee & milk (I drink 1% anyway), and she said if I MUST occasionally eat bread or potatoes it can be rye and sweet potatoes. Still, *sniffle*....

I've had to stop buying certain foods because the temptation to indulge is too strong. I can’t eat what isn’t there and I don’t have a car, so it’s a pretty effective deterrent.